Dress code for a criminal mind?

It was April, and amid the humid weather, law enforcers were also in hot pursuit of so-called violators of the “Safer Cities” program. Thousands of people – about 72,000 of them – had been rounded up within just a few days of the program’s implementation.

Not for theft.
Not for violence.

But for staying outside of their homes. For drinking. For being shirtless.

So, the question is: Where is the crime? Why run after ordinance violators and not the criminals?

The rationale was, “minor violations often lead to more serious crimes,” according to the head of the law enforcement agency. Of course, it is false logic to assume that minor infractions cause escalation into serious crime, unless they provide statistics to support that claim.

Safer cities for whom?

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), through the Philippine National Police (PNP), launched a nationwide initiative called Safer Cities in early April 2026.

It started in Metro Manila and is expected to expand across major urban areas in the Philippines like Baguio, Cebu, Bacolod, and presumably, will be enforced in other areas….if I may say so, those frequented by tourists or expats or overseas visitors.

The goal, according to reports is “to improve police visibility in highly populated areas in Metro Manila. Police will be deployed in schools, transportation hubs, and other places of convergence like malls. In other words, increase police visibility, strengthen public safety, and make communities feel more secure. This, according to the DILG chief, Jonvic Remulla, follows the directive of Philippine president Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. to intensify peace and order efforts.

The program includes police deployment in schools, presence in transport hubs like MRT and bus terminals; patrols in malls, tourist areas, and crowded places, coordination with barangay officials. On paper, it sounds reassuring. But on the ground – something else is happening.

Reality on the ground – plucking out the bad apples or weeding out the grassroots?

Alongside increased police presence, stricter public rules are being enforced:

• Curfew hours for minors
• No drinking alcohol in public spaces
• No loud noise or late-night videoke
• And even… no roaming around or staying out shirtless.

Within days, thousands were already apprehended. Many were fined. Some were simply rounded up. Most of those affected come from low-income urban communities.

Going topless is not obscenity but human survival from cramped existence

In many areas, daily life doesn’t look like a controlled environment. Homes are small and crowded. Ventilation is limited. Streets become shared spaces.

So, people sit outside to cool down, to talk with neighbors, or drink casually after work.

This is a typical scenario: A man sits outside his home, shirtless, trying to escape the heat and extreme humidity. He’s not causing trouble. But under these “safer cities” rules – he becomes a violator.

Now compare that to someone inside a gated subdivision, doing the same thing behind walls. Will he be apprehended? I don’t think so. Same action. Different outcome.

Spectacle of shame

For our pre-colonial ancestors, being topless was as normal as sunrise. However, that nudity was viewed by Western colonizers as uncivilized or “savage.” They also associated our appearance with paganism and racial inferiority.

During the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair, Filipinos were exhibited to the public. Some were made to appear “primitive” based on how they dressed, or on being nearly naked.

They were observed, judged, and defined not by who they were, but by how they looked.

It was a different time and setting, but the pattern is familiar. It is surprising how this perspective has, in some ways, carried into present-day attitudes, where even fellow Filipinos may view being shirtless (not to mention being dressed out of fashion) as indicative of being low class or uneducated.

Appearance has long been used to justify perception based on false or distorted narratives.

Prejudice in practice

Prejudice doesn’t always come in the form of insults or direct discrimination. Sometimes, it appears through rules and practices that affect certain groups more than others.

When enforcement is heavier in some areas and lighter in others, it creates an uneven experience of the law.

Over time, people begin to feel as though they are being “cased” for no apparent reason, but because of an erroneous judgment call. Supermarkets, for instance, are notorious for this kind of behavior toward shoppers. The moment someone spends more than a minute in an aisle, a security staff member suddenly appears and glances their way.

If one does not live in the posh sections of the metropolis, it is hardly surprising to be treated differently — or to be subjected to more profiling than bourgeois counterparts.

And it is not because of what they did, but because of how they live — or what they wear.

Fear as a form of discipline

Inciting fear to enforce discipline is passé, ineffective, and morally damaging. I cannot emphasize this enough. Unfortunately, many people in positions of authority still belong to demographics that adhere to old-school notions of discipline.

Under policies like “Safer Cities,” fear and distrust among people are sown.

Not fear of crime – but fear of being mistaken for one.

Inciting fear to enforce discipline is passé, ineffective, and morally damaging. I cannot emphasize this enough. Unfortunately, many people in positions of authority still belong to demographics that adhere to old-school notions of discipline.

Here is another typical scenario: A person steps outside at night to buy something from a nearby sari-sari store or to visit a neighbor and ask about something.

But then they hesitate before even making a move.

“Baka mahuli ako.” (I might be caught)
“Baka mapagkamalan ako.” (I might be suspected)

Even when there is no harmful intent behind their actions, people still do not feel safe. That kind of fear cripples self-worth, limits movement, and creates tension in everyday life.

A policy that bring results – for better or worse?

Authorities point to results – crime rates have reportedly dropped.

” The country’s crime rate dropped by 16% during the first 43 days of implementation of the Safer Cities drive, reported the law enforcers”. In the recent week, from 18 May to 24, major crimes fell 39%, according to a more recent report.

But these results do not tell the whole story – they leave out the anticlimax of who is adversely impacted by these measures.

A criminal in sheep’s clothing

What does a criminal look like?

Is it someone in simple clothes? Someone standing outside at night? Wearing threadbare shorts? Donning a faded cap? Carrying an old backpack? Wearing a tattered shirt or even no shirt at all?

Or someone in a suit or even a Barong Tagalog (a formal shirt for men; a national attire in the Philippines), who knows exactly how not to look like a crook?

A malefic intent does show in clothing. Shady characters backed by goons and gold can afford to buy the fanciest designer clothes, accessories, and jewelry when they choose to.

Ordinary Filipinos who toil every day to put food on the table despite their meager earnings—the minimum salary in the National Capital Region is Php 658–695 or ≤ US$10.79–11.39 (₱61$1) – obviously do not have the extra money to buy a new shirt every month!

Clothes alone do not define character. Decent wear is a social construct; and being different does not mean being dangerous. Because the truth is, some people who look harmless can be the ones with the meanest intentions, while some people who look “out of place” are simply trying to survive and live their lives.